Is there a Democratic candidate for POTUS I can support?

[septimus]

• Two old women are standing next to a railroad track while a train approaches.
  One starts to walk to the track and will surely be crushed by the train if you fail to act.

Which do you do?
(A) Pull the woman back to safety.
(B) Push the second woman so she gets crushed also.
© Just go home, or vote for Gary Nutjob.

Notes for teacher: This parable should help the pupil understand that while 1 < 2, it is also the case that 0 < 1. When pupils grasp this lesson, move on to 0 < ½ < 1. Try lessons II and III if pupiuls are still having difficulties.

[II] Now the old woman is drowning. You have a very small life preserver. Which do you do?
(A) Throw the life preserver to the drowning woman.
(B) Tear it in half and throw her half a preserver.

(III) On a happier day you eat out at a restaurant. Unfortunately there are only two items on the menu.
(A) You order the dog-shit garnished with cow-snot.
(B) You order the hamburger with catsup.
© You complain that veal piccata is not on the menu; tell the waiter to just flip a coin; you don’t care whether you get the dog-shit or the hamburger.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Then, in that case, you’ve failed at civics and I think you’re kind of a jerk for that. You don’t understand how voting and civic engagement works in this country, and you’re unwilling to do the bare fucking minimum to prevent the single worst president in modern history from getting a second term.

Yeah. You don’t see voting the way we do. And you’re wrong. And that’s not really okay after so many people have explained it to you, given how dire the stakes are.

‘Don’t be a jerk’ includes not calling people jerks, BPC. I’d think you’d know better than that.

Warning issued. Don’t do it again.

[Gyrate]

@octopus

Please don’t misrepresent my point of view. I don’t use socialism as a scare word. No more than others on this forum use fascism, with absolutely no pushback, as a scare word.

I didn’t use it as a “scare word”. I meant it literally. There is a long list of actions, behaviors and rhetoric coming from this administration and its Republican supporters that are straight out of the Nazi playbooks (not to mention, you know, actual neo-Nazis supporting it), and a broader trend of running roughshod over democratic norms and the rule of law in order to promote an authoritarian executive model.

I am aware that there are those who will handwave away such characterizations but nonetheless, I contend that the evidence is there.

[Slash1972]

@septimus

• Two old women are standing next to a railroad track while a train approaches.
  One starts to walk to the track and will surely be crushed by the train if you fail to act.

Which do you do?
(A) Pull the woman back to safety.
(B) Push the second woman so she gets crushed also.
(C) Just go home, or vote for Gary Nutjob.

Notes for teacher: This parable should help the pupil understand that while 1 < 2, it is also the case that 0 < 1. When pupils grasp this lesson, move on to 0 < ½ < 1. Try lessons II and III if pupiuls are still having difficulties.

[II] Now the old woman is drowning. You have a very small life preserver. Which do you do?
(A) Throw the life preserver to the drowning woman.
(B) Tear it in half and throw her half a preserver.

What are the women’s views on gun registration? I’d need to know that before deciding to help them or not.

[drad_dog]

Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
“You, and pretty much all of the other lefties in this thread, damn sure act like you’re entitled to my vote. I do not see voting the way you do, and I’m probably not going to see it that way.”

Isn’t this the whole thread right here?

[Oakminster]

@septimus

(III) On a happier day you eat out at a restaurant. Unfortunately there are only two items on the menu.
(A) You order the dog-shit garnished with cow-snot.
(B) You order the hamburger with catsup.
(C) You complain that veal piccata is not on the menu; tell the waiter to just flip a coin; you don’t care whether you get the dog-shit or the hamburger.

Or I walk out of that restaurant, and hit the Cajun place down the street for some gumbo and jambalaya.

If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds.

[Airbeck]

@Oakminster

Or I walk out of that restaurant, and hit the Cajun place down the street for some gumbo and jambalaya.

If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds.

I will go out on a limb here and say that there will never ever be a viable Democratic candidate that will meet your specific demands. There are no where near enough voters with your unique preferences to make that candidate viable in an election.

You can participate in our democracy and try to help move the country in the right direction, or you can refuse. That is certainly your choice. However, you are not entitled to force either of the parties to acquiesce to your demands though. No citizen has that right.

[Oakminster]

@Airbeck

I will go out on a limb here and say that there will never ever be a viable Democratic candidate that will meet your specific demands. There are no where near enough voters with your unique preferences to make that candidate viable in an election.

You can participate in our democracy and try to help move the country in the right direction, or you can refuse. That is certainly your choice. However, you are not entitled to force either of the parties to acquiesce to your demands though. No citizen has that right.

And yet, there are acceptable Dems. I voted for two of them in the recent local elections. Both were pro gun. One is a veteran. The other had a commercial with him sighting in a deer rifle, and another where he wore his pistol on screen. Both lost to simpering Trump sycophants, but they ran, and had my support.

[Airbeck]

@Oakminster

And yet, there are acceptable Dems. I voted for two of them in the recent local elections. Both were pro gun. One is a veteran. The other had a commercial with him sighting in a deer rifle, and another where he wore his pistol on screen. Both lost to simpering Trump sycophants, but they ran, and had my support.

Local. Sure.

Nationally? No way in hell. Sorry.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Oakminster

If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds.

The Green Party has collected millions of votes in presidential elections. How has that worked out for them?

Lots of people vote third party. It’s just that there are structural hurdles in the way of that actually mattering. That Cajun place down the road? In this metaphor, it went out of business long ago, or maybe it will take your order but never deliver your food, but you’re sure not getting crawfish because they, like third parties in the USA, do not deliver.

[Oredigger77]

@Airbeck

I will go out on a limb here and say that there will never ever be a viable Democratic candidate that will meet your specific demands. There are no where near enough voters with your unique preferences to make that candidate viable in an election.

So you don’t think that there are tens of thousands of people similar to Oak that would have voted for Clinton if she had believably changed her opinion on gun control? That’s all it would have taken particularly in the upper midwest where there are more people who vote based on guns.

The Dems could probably crush the Repubs if they did run a candidate who was a strong second amendment supporter.

[Airbeck]

@Oredigger77

So you don’t think that there are tens of thousands of people similar to Oak that would have voted for Clinton if she had believably changed her opinion on gun control? That’s all it would have taken particularly in the upper midwest where there are more people who vote based on guns.

The Dems could probably crush the Repubs if they did run a candidate who was a strong second amendment supporter.

And how many Bernie style progressives and gun control advocates would then have voted for Jill Stein or whoever else. The Democratic party is a coalition. We can’t just sacrifice all of those voters who are in favor of gun control, which is more popular than the extreme stance of 2nd amendment absolutism by the way, to chase a few thousand voters. That’s how we suicide ourselves in an election.

[Ravenman]

@Oredigger77

So you don’t think that there are tens of thousands of people similar to Oak that would have voted for Clinton if she had believably changed her opinion on gun control? That’s all it would have taken particularly in the upper midwest where there are more people who vote based on guns.

The Dems could probably crush the Repubs if they did run a candidate who was a strong second amendment supporter.

Conversely, Republicans could probably get a lot more moderate votes if they ran a pro-choice candidate.

[DrDeth]

@Oakminster

…

If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds.

After watching the disasters in GB and Israel, I dont think a multi part system has any real benefits.

and a third party only sucks voters of either the Dems or the GOP, making that party a sure loser.

[DrDeth]

@Airbeck

And how many Bernie style progressives and gun control advocates would then have voted for Jill Stein or whoever else. The Democratic party is a coalition. We can’t just sacrifice all of those voters who are in favor of gun control, which is more popular than the extreme stance of 2nd amendment absolutism by the way, to chase a few thousand voters. That’s how we suicide ourselves in an election.

Altho yes, *“gun control, which is more popular than the extreme stance of 2nd amendment absolutism” * it’s only moderate gun control, including such things are Red Flag laws, better background checks etc. In general, the public is pretty evenly split over gun control.

A smart dem candidate would take a moderate position on gun control,not the radicalism of Booker, Harris , or Beto. Even Biden has some pretty radical ideas:
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. This means every gun company in the USA will be sued endlessly by survivors. Do we hold Ford “accountable” when someone uses a Ford to drive into a crowd of people? Did we hold whoever made the planes in 9/11 "accountable?

2.Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. I dont mind laws that require future buyers to register or even ban future sales. But I think requiring people to bought a weapon totally legally, then requiring new laws to continue to just own that weapon are a bad idea. And CA has show they dont reduce violent crime.

3. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. This means if you get SocSec disability for mental issues, you cant own a gun. Look, we already have laws that if you adjudged mentally ill you cant own a gun, but the rules for SocSec disability are much looser than that. PTSD, anxiety, depression, etc are all "disabilities’ but they dont mean you are too “crazy” to own a gun. This was a bad law.

4. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, These laws are fine if they meet the ACLUs standard for Due process, but many dont. CA’s dont, for example. Due process is a MUST.

5.Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun. This will simply allow some states to put up requirements for getting a license which are onerous and nearly impossible, such as the requirement for getting a CCW in LA County.

6. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes: this means locked in a gun safe, etc, so they are useless for home defense. SCOTUS has already said this is Unconstitutional. Mind you i support requiring this for households with young kids, say 12 and under?

7.**Require firearms owners to report if their weapon is lost or stolen. ** How about if you dont know that has occurred? Some dude vacation cabin is broken into and his shotgun is stolen, and used in a crime. The *victim *then goes to jail.

And this list is from one of the most *moderate *democrats.:eek: A man who I like for the job. Others are far more radical. So, I get what the OP is saying. There’s no reason why a dem candidate couldnt take the most popular gun control measures and the ones SCOTUS said were Ok, and make that his position.

[DrDeth]

@Ravenman

Conversely, Republicans could probably get a lot more moderate votes if they ran a pro-choice candidate.

Arnie won Governator in a state which is heavily dem by doing just that.

Of course the GOP didnt learn from this and kept nominating new Gov candidates who were somewhat to the right of David Duke and Gov Maddox.

There are a few Pro-choice Republicans currently. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska for one. If the GOP ran her, I’d be tempted.

[Oredigger77]

@Airbeck

And how many Bernie style progressives and gun control advocates would then have voted for Jill Stein or whoever else. The Democratic party is a coalition. We can’t just sacrifice all of those voters who are in favor of gun control, which is more popular than the extreme stance of 2nd amendment absolutism by the way, to chase a few thousand voters. That’s how we suicide ourselves in an election.

What? I thought you said that dems who weren’t happy just hold their nose and vote for the world to be a better place. I guess a Dem candidate has to earn far left votes by being against leaving guns alone.

I’m not sure how you could suicide yourself in an election more then 2016.

I totally agree its crazy for Repubs to be prolife. They could run on the same platform but be pro choice and get 10% more votes

[Airbeck]

You have to make a coalition to win an election. Allowing a small minority of potential voters to force you into adapting only their preferences, which are not popular, is the opposite of that.

Nobody gets 100% of what they want. Never have, never will. Waiting for that to happen before participating is abdicating your responsibility as a citizen.

[Oredigger77]

Right so if the less gets 99% of what they want but no change on guns they should be happy with that.

Obviously, lack of change from the current position on guns in the most popular position since as has been said in this thread even if the most extreme Dem is elected nothing will change with regards to guns so why lose voters for an issue you won’t accomplish anything on.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ravenman

I disagree. My analogy is also meant to illustrate how the math works. If 65 million left wingers parachute into the country, AOC is our next President. I don’t see how you can argue with this.

Um, okay. Of course you’re right. Nobody seems to be arguing otherwise. People are arguing that choosing third party instead of choosing the lesser of two plausible evils doesn’t change the calculus. I’m glad you made your parachuting point, though, in case it turns out someone here isn’t understanding basic addition.

But you are making the mistake of assuming that non-voters have a binary choice: Clinton or Trump. In reality, many Americans who feel estranged from the political system might vote for Gary Johnson, Mickey Mouse, or might not cast a vote for President at all. It isn’t correct to say that those individuals - who will never have cast a vote for Clinton - are responsible for Trump winning the election. They are really just totally removed from the process.

No, no, no, no, no. I’m not assuming that. I’m explicitly building that into what I’m saying. Of course I know that they don’t have a binary choice for their own decision. They don’t have any binary choice at all. They do, however, have a very limited choice, and that limited choice is how to affect the election’s outcome.

For the purpose of affecting the world, the choice isn’t, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Mickey Mouse, Constitution Party, Stay Home. It’s Democrat, Republican, ANYTHING ELSE.

Since I find the question of a person’s personal decision uninteresting, it’s only the question of how a person affects the world that I care about.

Let me change the analogy: you’re counting cards at blackjack and come to an extremely favorable count. You should bet heavily because the next many cards will tend to be in your favor. But that doesn’t mean that the count allows you to predict what the next card out of the shoe will be - it could be the ten that you expect, but could be a low number, and it could be that yellow plastic card that dealers use to know when to reshuffle. In reality, Oak is that next card — even though you know that a preponderance of the remaining cards will break in your favor.

I’m sorry, but I’m not following the analogy. How is Oak the next card? Are you saying I need to win him somehow?

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

Yet another reason why we need to eliminate the zero-sum two-party system. Get rid of this “lesser evil” shit.

Absolutely. I hate the lesser evil shit. Get rid of it through effective means. And 364 days of the year, I support your getting rid of it. I’ve proposed a method here and elsewhere that I think is viable, based on building a ground-up social/political movement. God, I’m not a fan of the Democratic party at all. I hate voting for the lesser of two evils.

But on that 365th day–on election day–put a clothespin on your nose and push the damn trolley.